Royal New Zealand Air Force

[StingrayOZ]

IIRC the total number of whitetails started at 10. It was going to be 13, but LM cancelled the last three just before long lead items were bought, because of lack of orders for the 10 already building.

So, all new sales (including to Australia) have to add up to no more than 10.

Well Australia is looking at 4 additional (2 yes and 2 maybe) and NZ is possibly looking at 2.

IMO is pays to go big. There is really no mission where a single C-130 flying out of NZ is going to be cheaper, because you will have to fly multiple flights. Future equipment will get bigger and heavier (perhaps C17 only compatable), distances aren't getting any smaller.The C-130 size is no longer the best fit IMO.

C27J is now your small tactical, and C-17 is your everything. C-130 is down to niche stuff.

C17 plugs into US, AUS, UK chains and support. Between us having 10-12 C-17s is pretty significant. It wouldn't mean they would have to be based in OZ at all. But when 1 is down for maintenance, capability could easily be covered by the other nation. Its more about maintenance scheduling and planning that they would have to be based/operating in OZ.

Looks like a C17 could do Christchurch to McMurdo and back without refueling, just. Assuming a light load going down (some people, a few light pallets) and empty coming back. Certainly airdrops seem possible.

 

[John Fedup]

A C-17 shouldn't be able to do a return trip without refuelling if the 757 can't, our 757-200's have a greater range than a C-17ER.

It's interesting I can find a lot of article's about trailing the 767 to McMurdo but no articles about the flight itself, it was supposed to have happened in 2013, does anyone know if it actually happened?

There were several mentions of flight cancellations in late 2013 and I couldn't find any references that this flight actually took place. As for C-17 and 757-200 ranges, it depends on the load. The C-17 in paratrooper mode (40,000 lbs) is 5000 nm versus 2400 nm with full load (70+ tons). The 757-200 is 4100 nm assuming it has winglets.

 

[Oberon]

Actually saw a C-17 today flying low and clean to the west of Canberra. Beautiful sight.

 

[kiwi in exile]

hopefully we will see something reliable, official about the possible C17s soon,

C17s will be great for antarctic ops (we could take over US deep freeze flights) and moving nh90s and LAVs overseas. And big HADR missions.
But I'm worried that the cost of getting these may mean we have a gap in our medium level tactical airlift. Obviously we will have the hercs for approx 10 more years. Im sure when people have raised speculation about C17s before many have said it;'s too big for our needs, costs too much etc.

 

[John Fedup]

hopefully we will see something reliable, official about the possible C17s soon,

C17s will be great for antarctic ops (we could take over US deep freeze flights) and moving nh90s and LAVs overseas. And big HADR missions.
But I'm worried that the cost of getting these may mean we have a gap in our medium level tactical airlift. Obviously we will have the hercs for approx 10 more years. Im sure when people have raised speculation about C17s before many have said it;'s too big for our needs, costs too much etc.

Users are very satisfied with the C-17. NATO relied on An-124s for a lot of heavy lift in the ME due to good pricing and availability. Given the recent events in the Ukraine and Russia, this service may become a memory. Perhaps Boeing is missing some opportunity as there is no Western strategic lift jet being offered at this time. Also, the USAF C-17s have seen a lot of use lately although, like the C-5, a upgrade program will probably happen down the road for the C-17. The UK, Australia, and Canada all started with 4 C-17s each. The former two countries are doubling their fleets and Canada will regret it didn't do the same.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Actually saw a C-17 today flying low and clean to the west of Canberra. Beautiful sight.

I work in the parliamentary triangle and that sucker made a few of us walk outside to see how low it was - she was loud and low doing that sweep....

 

[ngatimozart]

I work in the parliamentary triangle and that sucker made a few of us walk outside to see how low it was - she was loud and low doing that sweep....

Apparently was for the passing out parade of 220 midshipman and officer cadets that graduated today from Australian Defence Force Academy. Photo from Military Photos Commonwealth Facebook page.

 

[recce.k1]

Radio Live news is reporting that the NZDF is asking for costing and information for a potential acquisition of the C-17 Globemaster. Their audio piece has the DefMin stating the C-130 will need replacing in about 5 years and that "we've decided to look at all options ... and that has led us to seek a price and availability report from US supply sources" but it "isn't a commitment to buy, it's simply part of tracking down the info you need for any decision making process" (mind you at this point in time he would say that, but here's hoping it all pans out).

No aircraft numbers are given however Radio Live is mentioning a figure of "a quarter of a billion dollars". Not clear if that means the cost is for only one aircraft or simply that the aircraft themselves cost approx. $250M a piece (i.e. presumably sans support and training packages etc).

Audio at http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Audio.aspx, select today's 4pm news bulletin.

 

[John Fedup]

Radio Live news is reporting that the NZDF is asking for costing and information for a potential acquisition of the C-17 Globemaster. Their audio piece has the DefMin stating the C-130 will need replacing in about 5 years and that "we've decided to look at all options ... and that has led us to seek a price and availability report from US supply sources" but it "isn't a commitment to buy, it's simply part of tracking down the info you need for any decision making process" (mind you at this point in time he would say that, but here's hoping it all pans out).

No aircraft numbers are given however Radio Live is mentioning a figure of "a quarter of a billion dollars". Not clear if that means the cost is for only one aircraft or simply that the aircraft themselves cost approx. $250M a piece (i.e. presumably sans support and training packages etc).



Audio at Audio - RadioLIVE, select today's 4pm news bulletin.

The current fly away cost for the A-400m is 180m US and if a whitetail C-17 is available, 250m US seems like a realistic price. I think the latter is better value for the money but unless a purchase is decided upon rather quickly, this option might disappear. In any event, only 1 aircraft purchase is possible with a 250m US. If the 250m is NZ dollars then the A-400m is the jet under consideration.

 

[John Fedup]

The Ottawa Citizen's defence-watch blog reported on Dec 11 that Canada's DND has government backing for a fifth C-17. Won't believe it until it arrives in Trenton, Ontario. The cost is listed a 1.7 billion which likely includes costs for a 20 year lifecycle. This is the BS pricing estimates now being used because the government was faulted for costing 65 F-35s at 6.5 billion instead of adding another 30-40 billion for 30-40 years of operation. The Liberals never did that when they bought F-18s back in the 1980s. The capital cost acquisition price was good enough for them.

 

[Volkodav]

I actually have made the suggestion previously in relation to the RAAF but the same would be true for the RNZAF, that once you have C-17s in service you don't really need C-130s so long as you also have a reasonably versatile tactical lifter to back them up. In the RAAFs case that would be C-27Js but NZ can still choose whatever best suits them, C295, C-27J, or something else.

 

[A4kscooter]

The C17 would be a vast improvement over the B757 because of its versatility and been able to operate without having to have any ground equipment for loading and unloading.
An addition purchase of C130J, C27 or C295M would compliment the C17 and offer the RNZAF greater flexibility
The A400 as the sole transport is just too large as it will spend half it life flying around half empty which isn't cost effective.
The RAF allegedly want to keep some Hercules in service as the A400 is too big for Special Forces operations.

 

[ngatimozart]

The C17 would be a vast improvement over the B757 because of its versatility and been able to operate without having to have any ground equipment for loading and unloading.
An addition purchase of C130J, C27 or C295M would compliment the C17 and offer the RNZAF greater flexibility
The A400 as the sole transport is just too large as it will spend half it life flying around half empty which isn't cost effective.
The RAF allegedly want to keep some Hercules in service as the A400 is too big for Special Forces operations.

Well if they decided to get the C130J and a battlefield airlifter then I would plumb for the C27J because of the cockpit similarities between it and the C130J. Whether the NZG would be agreeable to funding a C27J capability is another story just because of costs. However they can get all three aircraft thru FMS if they wish to use that path and it would give us a very good degree of commonality with the ADF across all three platforms.

 

[A4kscooter]

If they do decide on the C17 the decision needs to be made now as the UK, Canada and others may buy the remaining airframes and that option will be gone for ever.
Then you are left with the status quo and keeping B757s which I read somewhere are hangar queens because of there limited use and C130 or A400 which will need to operate with a smaller type such as C295M or C27 because as a single airlift type is just too big for New Zealand's needs

 

[John Fedup]

Canada's DND FWSAR choice is the C-27 and DND claims the commonality with some of the Herc'c stuff along with speed and interior space make it a batter choice than the C-295. Given we already have 15 C-130Js, why not just buy some more along with some drones for the searching part. This project is about 10 years behind. A back- up Hercules makes more sense for NZ.

 

[John Fedup]

If they do decide on the C17 the decision needs to be made now as the UK, Canada and others may buy the remaining airframes and that option will be gone for ever.
Then you are left with the status quo and keeping B757s which I read somewhere are hangar queens because of there limited use and C130 or A400 which will need to operate with a smaller type such as C295M or C27 because as a single airlift type is just too big for New Zealand's needs

It is interesting to see how recent customers (UK,Australia, and Canada) have seen how useful C-17s are and have increased their fleet sizes (Canada soon). NZ will as well and a C-130J, IMO, is the best partner transport for the C-17.

 

[MrConservative]

The C17 would be a vast improvement over the B757 because of its versatility and been able to operate without having to have any ground equipment for loading and unloading.
An addition purchase of C130J, C27 or C295M would compliment the C17 and offer the RNZAF greater flexibility
The A400 as the sole transport is just too large as it will spend half it life flying around half empty which isn't cost effective.
The RAF allegedly want to keep some Hercules in service as the A400 is too big for Special Forces operations.

The Rolls Royce Series 3.5 T-56 engine enhancement program recently signed off by the USAF could enhance and extend the lives of our C-130H and P-3K2 aircraft well towards the end of our current DWP. I consider that something like this is on the cards.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/C...Enhancement Package Infosheet_tcm92-47720.pdf

With the recent upgrades of both aircraft I think that they will be with us for the life of the current long term defence outlook. T-56 engine sustainability was really the last issue causing the Defence headaches post 2020 for the C-130H. The 3.5 upgrade could be that panadol they were looking for. Evidently the airframes post upgrade have stood up well.

However, yes there is a strategic lift capability gap and the B757 does not quite match up in that role.

That is why things are leaning in the C-17s favour and that we now are likely to hold on to the the C-130H a bit longer (Des Ashtons recent remarks may have signalled this and recent remarks that they are looking at all options) the C-17 is probably doable. To replace the B757 and the C-130 in or around 2020 was going to mean a tough road to have gone down

Since the T-56 upgrade could mean our very capable P-3K2s will also be able to stay in service longer. It may mean that the P-8 is still added to retain the tier 1 ISR capability ala BAMS, but the venerable P-3 flies on in a supporting role.

Combined costings projections from the DWP 2010 had around $3.5 - $4 billion committed to both the C-130H/B757 and P-3 replacements.

Thus 4 P-8s and 2 C-17s with Series 3.5 T-56 engine enhancement program by RR for the 6 P-3s and 5 C-130s that will keep them flying into the 2030s is looking more and more likely.

To be honest it is very smart thinking. It dramatically boosts capability. If we do this it leaves us able to look at doing more in other areas of defence underfunding or shortfalls.

Cheers MrC

 

[ngatimozart]

The Rolls Royce Series 3.5 T-56 engine enhancement program recently signed off by the USAF could enhance and extend the lives of our C-130H and P-3K2 aircraft well towards the end of our current DWP. I consider that something like this is on the cards.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/C...Enhancement Package Infosheet_tcm92-47720.pdf

With the recent upgrades of both aircraft I think that they will be with us for the life of the current long term defence outlook. T-56 engine sustainability was really the last issue causing the Defence headaches post 2020 for the C-130H. The 3.5 upgrade could be that panadol they were looking for. Evidently the airframes post upgrade have stood up well.

However, yes there is a strategic lift capability gap and the B757 does not quite match up in that role.

That is why things are leaning in the C-17s favour and that we now are likely to hold on to the the C-130H a bit longer (Des Ashtons recent remarks may have signalled this and recent remarks that they are looking at all options) the C-17 is probably doable. To replace the B757 and the C-130 in or around 2020 was going to mean a tough road to have gone down

Since the T-56 upgrade could mean our very capable P-3K2s will also be able to stay in service longer. It may mean that the P-8 is still added to retain the tier 1 ISR capability ala BAMS, but the venerable P-3 flies on in a supporting role.

Combined costings projections from the DWP 2010 had around $3.5 - $4 billion committed to both the C-130H/B757 and P-3 replacements.

Thus 4 P-8s and 2 C-17s with Series 3.5 T-56 engine enhancement program by RR for the 6 P-3s and 5 C-130s that will keep them flying into the 2030s is looking more and more likely.

To be honest it is very smart thinking. It dramatically boosts capability. If we do this it leaves us able to look at doing more in other areas of defence underfunding or shortfalls.

Cheers MrC

The only fly in the ointment that I can see at the moment is the airframe hours left on the aircraft. These aircraft first saw service in the mid 1960s with the RNZAF and your proposal is contingent upon the conditions of the airframes. To be honest if the airframes need another LEP will it be really worth the cost vis a vis new aircraft? If they do decide to undertake your proposal and an airframe LEP is required, then it has to start soon because the first C130 is due to retire in 5 years. The oldest RNZAF C130 NZ7001 was bought on charge by the RNZAF on 08 April 1965. It was also used by Lockheed for much of the flight testing of the H model because it was the first H model flown. The final C130, NZ7005 was bought on charge by the RNZAF on 06 June 1969. The P3K NZ4201 was bought on charge by the RNZAF on 01 August 1966 as a P3B and NZ4205 being bought on charge on 04 January 1967. NZ4206 was delivered to the RAAF as P3B with serial A9-291 in April 1968 and sold to the RNZAF in May 1985 and serialized NZ4206. As you can see all of these aircraft have been in service between 45 and 50 years.

 

[MrConservative]

The only fly in the ointment that I can see at the moment is the airframe hours left on the aircraft. These aircraft first saw service in the mid 1960s with the RNZAF and your proposal is contingent upon the conditions of the airframes. To be honest if the airframes need another LEP will it be really worth the cost vis a vis new aircraft? If they do decide to undertake your proposal and an airframe LEP is required, then it has to start soon because the first C130 is due to retire in 5 years. The oldest RNZAF C130 NZ7001 was bought on charge by the RNZAF on 08 April 1965. It was also used by Lockheed for much of the flight testing of the H model because it was the first H model flown. The final C130, NZ7005 was bought on charge by the RNZAF on 06 June 1969. The P3K NZ4201 was bought on charge by the RNZAF on 01 August 1966 as a P3B and NZ4205 being bought on charge on 04 January 1967. NZ4206 was delivered to the RAAF as P3B with serial A9-291 in April 1968 and sold to the RNZAF in May 1985 and serialized NZ4206. As you can see all of these aircraft have been in service between 45 and 50 years.

The LEP has gone a long way to addressing those issues surrounding airframe life. That was its purpose. As I noted the T-56 sustainability was the remaning issue and if the RR 3.5 upgrade can possibly (we dont know for sure) sign that issue off - then go for it. Fly them until Lockheed comes up with its future C-130 replacement circa 2028-2030. It will mean the P-3 could soldier on in a 2nd tier role and be eventually replaced by Tritons.

There is no point in not getting the most value out of what are a tough dogged workhorses for longer if they can do those extra years courtesy of what in the scheme of things will be a low cost project. A hell of a lot lower than acquiring new C-27Js or C-295s or indeed new C-130Js. Especially if it allows us to step up into topend C-17s and P-8s with less drama and earlier. The C-17 and P-8 taking the workload brunt would sustain the P-3K and C-130H longer.

 

[A4kscooter]

Why does NZ insist on upgrading the Hercules when other C130H operators such as Australia, Canada, UK, Denmark etc have already replaced theirs with the C130J? I suspect they decided on retiring the C130H because it is old, expensive to operate and doesn't have the performance required and in the longterm will save money.
2 x C17, 2 x C130J -30 and 2 x C130J would be great mixture offering enormous flexibilty.
Buying the 757 was always a mistake because it lacks flexibility and requires ground support equipment everywhere it flys too while the 737 with integrated steps for passenger operations does not require the same support although it lacks the range
The MPA force has realistically has 3 options
continue with the current old P3K, 2nd hand younger ex RAAF ?P3C or P8. Because of New Zealand huge EEZ anything smaller probably will lack the required range.
They could also look at the SC130J but would they really want to be the sole operator of this Hercules variant?